Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Acquittal due to lack of evidence and procedural errors in murder case; convictions set aside.</h1> <h3>State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Ramprakash and Ors. AND Munnilal and etc. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh</h3> The appellants were acquitted and ordered to be released as the court found the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Significant ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Sections 302 and 201, IPC.2. Absence of direct evidence and reliance on circumstantial evidence.3. Validity of recoveries and seizures of incriminating articles.4. Identification of the accused and seized articles.5. Compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 100(4), Cr.P.C.6. Test identification parade and its reliability.7. Motive and enmity as evidence.8. Examination of accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C.9. Admissibility and reliability of statements under Section 27, Evidence Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Conviction under Sections 302 and 201, IPC:The appellants were convicted under Sections 302 and 201, IPC for the murder of Rameshwar and Gabbar. The trial court imposed a death sentence under Section 302 and seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 201.2. Absence of Direct Evidence and Reliance on Circumstantial Evidence:The prosecution faced a dilemma due to the absence of direct evidence. The case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of articles and the identification of the deceased bodies.3. Validity of Recoveries and Seizures of Incriminating Articles:The evidence of the Investigating Officer (I.O.) contradicted the deposition of P.W. 5, who initially reported the discovery of the bodies. The I.O. denied seizing any articles from the place where the bodies were found, claiming they were recovered from different locations. The court found the seizures doubtful due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration by independent witnesses.4. Identification of the Accused and Seized Articles:The identification of the articles, such as the towel, was delayed by 18 days, which tainted the evidence. Witnesses failed to provide reasons for identifying the articles, and the identification process lacked proper documentation of the distinguishing features of the seized items.5. Compliance with Procedural Safeguards under Section 100(4), Cr.P.C.:The court noted a breach of Section 100(4), Cr.P.C., which mandates the presence of 'two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality' during searches. The prosecution failed to provide an explanation for non-compliance, rendering the seizures invalid.6. Test Identification Parade and Its Reliability:The test identification parade for appellant Mansaram was conducted 27 days after his arrest, making it unreliable. Witnesses admitted to seeing the accused before the parade, further tainting the identification process.7. Motive and Enmity as Evidence:The court found the evidence of motive, such as past enmity and disputes, insufficient to implicate the accused. The alleged motive was deemed a double-edged sword, potentially serving as a basis for false implication.8. Examination of Accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C.:The trial court's examination of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C., was inadequate. The accused were not specifically confronted with the material objects or statements attributed to them, violating procedural safeguards.9. Admissibility and Reliability of Statements under Section 27, Evidence Act:The court found the statements under Section 27, Evidence Act, inadmissible as they included self-incriminatory details. The recoveries based on these statements were also deemed unreliable due to procedural lapses and lack of independent witnesses.Conclusion:The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence was found tainted, and significant gaps remained in linking the accused to the crime. Consequently, the convictions under Sections 302 and 201, IPC were set aside, and all appellants were acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found